Subject:
|
Re: Newsbits: CA Recall and IMF-Argentina Negotiations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:18:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
714 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
One book may be a revelation, or it could be a disgruntled whiner. It may be
correct for the situation he was in, but not for the industry at large. It
may even be correct for the industry at large, but by itself, it would be
hard to draw that conclusion.
|
True, but it’s very difficult to refute Goldberg’s claims in the book. He makes
several good points, such as:
1) Why conservatives are always labelled and liberals are not, e.g., why it’s
always “conservative” Antonin Scalia but never “liberal” Laurence Tribe.
2) Why white males are the only group that can be ridiculed. (I take it as a
compliment since we’re the only ones tough enough to take it!) ;-)
3) Why well-meaning advocacy groups are not questioned, but simply have their
line repeated.
4) Why news reporters openly mock the stories they are covering, rather than
simply reporting. Goldberg’s ostracism from CBS began when he questioned the
objectivity of a reporter who in a news story termed Steve Forbes’ flat tax
proposal as a “risky scheme.”
5) Why alternative viewpoints are not presented. He gives the example of a
story that had views from two antis and no pros as an example.
FWIW, Alterman’s “What Liberal Media?” provides a counterpoint. He makes the
mistake of defining himself (and he’d make George McGovern look like Barry
Goldwater) as middle-of-the-road, therefore anything to the right of him is
conservative. He makes an excellent case about conservative media not providing
alternative viewpoints as well, leading to your well-said point:
| |
For the point of debate, let me note that I have utterly no doubt that
instances of bias can be found, in either direction, human nature being what
it is.
|
I shall not debate your infinite wisdom on this, as I am in wholehearted
agreement.
| |
| |
I mean “mainstream media,” meaning media outlets where people turn for
information rather than opinion, which includes the: major networks...
|
|
Fox still doesn’t qualify as a major network. It qualifies as a cable news
network. Just compare viewership of the evening ABC/NBC/CBS news (~20 million
viewers each) to Fox News viewership (~1.5 million viewers).
| |
Yes, you were specific, but you left a lot uncovered, nor have I heard Time
and Newsweek singled out as “liberal” before. You may be right, I don’t read
them on a regular enough basis to form an opinion - but there is a tendancy
among conservatives to identify anything not specifically conservative as
liberal (get in that pre-emptive strike alleging bias, just in case).
|
You’re right about the tendency to label anything not conservative as liberal,
and for liberals to label anything not liberal as conservative. Once again,
human nature.
| |
As to the point about endorsees, I simply didn’t challenge you to provide
evidence of such because I thought it would go down a tedious route - locally
of the two biggest newspapers, the Los Angeles Times will recommend both
liberals and conservatives, the Orange County Register only conservatives, so
my local experience does not support your claim (not that it represents a
valid sample). Anyway, I take it you have a headcount to have made your
claim, so quote the source and lets take a look at the evidence.
|
Geez, I am chagrined. I looked closely at he study that I was ready to bludgeon
you with and it was from 1980--hardly applicable to our debate (ouch!)!
The only numbers that I found in a cursory search that had a reasonable basis
were from USAToday and Gannett (its parent company). They reported the
following endorsements for the past few presidential elections:
1992
----
45 endorsed Clinton
15 endorsed Bush
22 made no endorsement
1996
----
40 endorsed Clinton
21 endorsed Dole
21 made no endorsement
(source: http://update.usatoday.com/go/newswatch/96/nw1124-4.htm)
1996
----
45 endorsed Clinton
28 endorsed Dole
24 made no endorsement
1 offered opposing endorsements by different members of the editorial board
2000
----
41 endorsed Gore
37 endorsed Bush
20 made no endorsement
(source: http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/2000/november/nw1110-3.htm)
Comment 1: I wonder why the difference in 1996 numbers between the two sources,
obviously both Gannett-based. I’d suspect that the more recent one includes
papers acquired in the time period between reports.
Comment 2: Tedious in the extreme, looking this up. I spent about 2 hours
looking for a relevant study of this, that wasn’t from some propaganda site.
I’d find it interesting to see a study that looked at endorsements by party or
leaning, especially if it included circulation of the paper in there. Any
interested journalism or poli sci students out there?
| |
No, it’s not a notation of the status quo: the term “liberal media” is an
attempt by conservatives to try and dismiss any criticism of them by claiming
bias. An example would be to call newspapers liberal, but then trumpet how
newspapers claimed that Bush would have won the recount in Florida (which is
the exact point this conversation began with), or use the “liberal media”
(i.e. the “mainstream media”) to bash Clinton over and over again. It’s not
the bashing I mind so much, as the hypocrisy of doing so while claiming the
“liberal” media is out to get them.
|
It is a term typically used in a whining manner, but that doesn’t make it
untrue. Here’s something from the American Society of Newspaper Editors
(http://www.asne.org/kiosk/editor/97.jan-feb/dennis4.htm) where a 1996 study
of newspaper journalists showed that 61% considered themselves “Democrat or
liberal,” 15% “Republican or conservative,” and 24% “independent.” The table
linked in the article contrasts that with the general public.
That of course doesn’t equate to bias in the media, nor do I believe that the
media is 100% biased 100% of the time. As I’ve said before, I think the media
bias isn’t a conspiracy. The vast majority of the time they do a fair job.
Their first bias is in favor of their ratings--anything “scandal” or
fearmongering gets top ratings, and therefore top treatment. Then when it comes
time to present different viewpoints, they go with what they know, which is more
often the liberal view. That’s how bias manifests itself, IMO.
And if you think that the bias never manifests itself on important issues, then
why did Dan Rather refuse for a month to report about Gary Condit, and why was
Trent Lott vilified (and rightly so) for his comments about Strom Thurmond but
Robert Byrd (D-WV) can use the n-word in a speech with no comment?
| |
Why? The one has nothing to do with the other. A better suggestion is to
keep the term “liberal media”, or don’t quote how newspaper claim Bush would
have won a recount. Give up one or the other since they are mutually
exclusive.
|
I just find it fun to point out that there was never a recount, public or
private, that showed Gore winning. I’m not trumpeting anything, just making a
point and quoting a source. Isn’t that what debating is about? And shouldn’t
you be interested in discrediting the point rather than accusing me of
hypocrisy?
| |
I already noted that Gore accepted the Supreme Court’s decision, so quoting
anything about Florida is fairly useless (a point that as I recall, you
agreed to). But be that as it may, since you have laid it on the table” the
Florida Supreme Court is not part of the Democratic party, so I don’t see
where you have a point.
|
It makes no difference whether he was successful or not. It’s sufficient for me
to show that Gore attempted to do “whatever it takes” to gain the office of the
presidency.
BTW, the nine-member Florida Supreme Court is composed of nine justices
appointed by Democrats.
| |
Judge: not democratic party, so again, there is no point.
|
So, you’ve called your Senators, and asked them to stop blocking Bush’s judicial
nominees? After all, they’re going to be judges, so they’re not going to be
partisan, regardless of who appoints them.
| |
But to adress it
anway, I take it you (or your source) is paraphrasing, because I sincerely
doubt that the law is written the way you quote it: who the heck would write
into a law “there is no provision allowing a judge to extend the hours of
voting? They would say, “the hours of voting may not be extended under any
circumstances” and if that was what was written, I firmly believe that is
what would have been quoted (but wouldn’t change that a judge could review
the law). Anyway, what you quote is stated as a spin. I can probably safely
restate it to say: there is no provision prohibiting a judge from extending
the hours, and I suspect I would be correct. Further, judicial review of
laws is well-established (i.e. just because there is a law, doesn’t make it
legal).
|
The actual law:
“The election judges shall open the polls at six o’clock in the morning and keep
them open until seven o’clock in the evening. At seven o’clock in the evening,
all voters at the polls, including any in line to vote, shall be permitted to
vote.” (Missouri Revised Statutes, Section 115.407
http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C100-199/1150407.HTM)
The law was passed in 1977 and contains the following annotation:
“(2000) Circuit judge lacked jurisdiction to extend voting hours. State ex rel.
Bush-Cheney 2000, Inc. v. Baker, 34 S.W.3d 410 (Mo.App.E.D.).”
The source for that document was the Missouri Secretary of State--the guy in
charge of elections--after public hearings and government investigation into
potential fraud. It’s interesting reading, especially the part (beginning at
the last paragraph of page 9) about how the Gore-Lieberman campaign filed a suit
alleging that someone was not allowed to vote when “Mr. Odom in fact had voted
and had no trouble voting.”
It continues on the next page:
“The information suggests that the lawsuit was not filed as a result of problems
that occurred on election day, but instead was filed as a result of a plan
conceived before election day. At about the same time that the court issued the
Order, St. Louis City residents were receiving pre-recorded telephone messages
from Rev. Jesse Jackson telling them they could vote late, and half an hour
later Vice President Al Gore was telling KMOX radio listeners that the polls
were still open. The purpose of these communications was to encourage persons
not eligible to vote because of their failure to get to the polls on time to
nonetheless go to the polls and vote.
“Further support that the attempt to extend the voting hours was not to address
problems that occurred on election day but instead was conceived before election
day is that almost the exact same petition was filed in Jackson County. A
comparison of the two petitions reveals that long passages in both petitions are
word-for-word the same. The use of canned pleadings suggests a strategy to
extend the voting hours was developed before election day, and that the lawsuits
were not a result of occurrences that happened on election day.”
Does that qualify as “whatever it takes,” a preplanned effort to file false
lawsuits to subvert election law?
| |
(deleting the reply I wrote as I realize that...) You need to establish that
Gore was behind the military ballot problems. You have currently simply
juxtaposed the two and implied a connection. Perhaps you felt it obvious,
but I need my memory jogged, alas.
|
Huh? Gore wasn’t behind the military ballot problems. I’m establishing that it
was hypocritical for him to continually claim that “every vote must count” when
he actively tried to throw out military (read: primarily Republican) ballots.
| |
Of course there were indications that abuses occured - they may or may not
have been the reason for the recount request that you are refering to, but
they were there. So, oops! - forgive me if I sloppily connected the two.
|
Ah, understood. The mathematical reason for the recount in heavily Democratic
areas is this. Let’s say (I’m making up numbers here) that there’s an
across-the-board counting error rate (meaning that the error prevented the
ballot from being properly counted) of 1% in an area with 100,000 voters. That
makes 1,000 votes in error. Now let’s say that the area voted 75% Democratic
and 25% Republican. A recount that corrected all errors would find 750
Democratic votes and 250 Republican votes. One in a heavily Republican area
would find more Republican votes.
| |
So...the claim was not backed up by any action (i.e. your accusation is not
supportable by the facts as they currently stand)?
|
I have no knowledge of any. That doesn’t mean that it’s wrong--if I’m wrong and
you don’t point it out I’m still wrong. It does not establish that mediation is
a proper means of judicial review either; can you point me to where it is?
| |
Ummmmm, if that’s the way you feel, why the arguement? But in any case, yes
you do have to tie it to the Democratic party, because the whole point is
that the Republican Party, from the top of the power structure is
coordinating the effort against the Democrats. The NAACP is not the
Democratic inner circle.
|
And the NRA isn’t the Republican inner circle either...
See above re: Missouri lawsuits for one that is related to at least the
Gore-Lieberman campaign as plaintiff. But I guess that’s not the Democratic
party?
| |
| |
Let’s talk about content then. Is equating the governor of a state to a
murderer acceptable content for a campaign ad?
|
Ummmmm, where did an ad say that? (to save the inevitable response, no the
ad you refered to made no such claim - however, the site you just disavowed
did)
|
That’s assuredly what it meant--“if you elect Bush these killings will
continue.”
| |
And I said your challenge is meaningless: if some other company was able to
abusively act in the fashion Enron did via coddling by The Powers That Be,
then we are still at the same point (i.e. I don’t find the Tit for Tat
Defense, or The Two Wrongs Make it Okay Defense as valid). So, again, yes or
no. Again, feel free to append explanations after the yes or no, but we
really can’t proceed until you actually answer. If yes, Bush and Co. did
clear the path for Enron’s excesses, then we have reached a conclusion on
this point (beyond any rationalizations or explanations that you feel may be
mitigating - your point about other companies getting the same treatment
would fall into this category). If no, then we can proceed to the evidence
that indicates otherwise.
|
I’m not sure where you learned about debating, but it’s up to the person making
the claim (i.e., “The bottom line is that they (Enron) were protected and
sheparded by Bush and his buddies every step of the way except the last.”) to
provide evidence. Give me hard evidence (not from some liberal propaganda site)
that the above is true. You can’t have it both ways, asking me to justify
everything that I say and refusing to do it yourself!
| |
Yes, you can say it more clearly, by matching deed to word. If it must not
be tolerated, then to prevent it the roots of the problem must be explored.
If the answer is: well, the roots can be explored, but if it gives ammunition
for liberals to rightly criticize Bush (assuming that’s where the evidence
goes), then no, the roots shouldn’t be explored, then your real answer is:
Yes, wrongdoing is to be tolerated, as long is it done by people I
politically agree with.
|
You’re confusing me with the Republican party: I can’t do much of anything about
Enron. Wish I could--its lying criminal execs deserve to be flat broke like the
people they bilked and in jail.
| |
And to temporize the seeming harshness of that last statement, let me say
that it is more of a trap that anyone can fall into, often without realizing
it, than a planned response.
|
I understand what you mean, and it’s not that harsh. All of us would like to
think we’re above it. I think that if there was wrongdoing by Bush and Cheney
they should be accountable for it.
I think for the most part the parties do a decent job of policing their own (the
Democrats properly distanced themselves from Gary Hart, the Republicans made
Gingrich, Livingston, & Lott step down) to show that they will challenge
wrongdoing, regardless of who does it.
| |
Equating a downturn, and a long term failure of the economy on someone else’s
watch is not particularly supportable. Further, you don’t believe your own
argument, why should I?
|
I don’t have to believe my argument to refute yours. All I’m saying is that if
you blame the bad economy on Bush then you need to assign blame to Clinton as
well. And plenty of other people deserve blame as well--overexuberant
investors, crooked execs and accountants, some Muslim extremists committing mass
murder by flying planes into buildings, to name a few.
| |
It didn’t try to halt an advancing economy, the intent was to stop it
spiraling out of control and having disaster strike a a later point because
of it. Sorry for the interruption....
|
No problem, and I accept your clarification. I agree with you and think the
Clinton administration did the right thing by trying to retard the
out-of-control growth that did indeed lead to disaster.
| |
You are splitting hairs with the “in part”. You claim he can’t be blamed for
the downturn, but he can at least help the (alleged) upturn? Do you wish to
amend that he can at least be blamed in part for the downturn (in theory, if
you like)?
|
(mock indignation) No, I’m only partially splitting hairs! ;-)
I think that the government can help or hurt the economy. I am crediting him
with making a correct move to help the economy, rather than one that will hurt
it.
My basic point is pretty simple: an economy that responds primarily to
government control is a communistic one. Our economy is not communist, and the
government doesn’t have much control.
Whew. Good thing only innocent electrons are harmed for us to continue this
debate, eh?
Best regards,
Carl
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
41 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
